bk59

Don't bother talking about the Constitution or Charter with Leafless. He has decided that the federal government does not count as representing the people and chooses to ignore the fact that the Constitution was patriated with the approval of multiple provinces led my multiple political parties. While he is entitled to his opinion, half of it is just wrong (i.e. the evil Liberals patriated the Constitution as part of their evil plans) and the other half (that the Charter is bad) just doesn't align with the views of most Canadians. See here: http://www.cric.ca/en_html/guide/charter/charter.html#cric Anyway... on with the show... First, numerous people have shown how international human rights explicitly recognize sexual orientation as a human right. Second, others have shown that international human rights can be interpreted to extend to same-sex marriage. However, to be fair to you, this is open to interpretation - some interpret that section as applying to heterosexual couples only while others take the SSM interpretation. More to the point, what does it matter if SSM has been recognized as a legitimate human right or not? Part of the reason why I keep asking you questions is to get to the basis of your argument. I can accept that you are morally against SSM. But you keep trying to base your argument on other reasons. First it was that SSM wasn't in the Constitution in 1867 therefore it was bad. When I pointed out that women's rights weren't there, you moved to an international standard (implying that the 1867 argument wasn't really valid, that the rights are based on international acceptance). Of course, this argument is pretty weak as well. At one time, no countries allowed women to have certain rights, including voting rights. Using your argument, the first country to consider allowing women to vote would have looked around at the international community and said "Oh, the standard seems to be that women shouldn't vote, therefore we won't let them." Using your argument, no country would have extended voting rights to women. You say that women's rights are human rights that were legally denied them. But many people say the exact same thing about sexual orientation. How do you determine that a women's right to vote is a human right, but equality based on sexual orientation is not? You should take a look at the whole paragraph that you are quoting: What it says is that if the Vatican's interpretation of sexual orientation rights is imposing their morality on others then groups advocating sexual orientation rights are imposing their morality on others. But that logic doesn't quite hold. If the Vatican had their way, then they would be preventing some people from doing what they want - SSM. But if SSM is allowed, how does that prevent (for example) Catholics from doing anything? Catholics are still allowed to believe that SSM is wrong, Catholics do not have to perform SS marriages in their churches, Catholics will still have their religious version of marriage that excludes homosexuals. There are people in the world that think, based on religious beliefs, that drinking or gambling is wrong. But no one argues that the existence of alcohol or casinos is somehow infringing on their rights. Or at least, I haven't seen an argument for that.

Wow do I have a problem with that statement. I just don't buy the position that the end justifies the means. If you are fighting a war and decide that a certain segment of your population (let's say for example an ethnic group) is hindering your efforts, does that mean you can just kill everyone who meets that criteria (everyone in that ethnic group)? I hope that is not what you are saying, but your statement above seems to indicate that it would be acceptable to perform genocide as long as it helped you to win a war.

Which as you can see above - if you were interested in listening to others as opposed to only listening to yourself - is exactly what I stated. Care to keep going or would you like to continue to make an ass of yourself? The USA never complained to the League of nations about Kamikaze pilots. They just killed them. Both perfectly legal. I hate to weigh in on this, but it looks to me as if Black Dog is the one with the correct argument. A suicide bomber is someone who detonates a bomb with no hope of surviving the explosion. Nowhere is this stated as illegal in the Conventions. If the bomber has not distinguished him or herself from the civilian population then that makes them an illegal combatant, but, as Black Dog pointed out, this does not make suicide bombing as a method illegal. Even you have acknowledged that point above, so I am a little unclear as to why you are so intent on bashing Black Dog. The intended target is also relevant to whether or not the action is legal or illegal, but again, the method - suicide bombing - is not specifically stated as illegal.

Call me cynical but that is what I expect. Are you expecting Harper to upset decades and decades of federal government political history and start giving a damn about what his ministers have to say??? Are you expecting Mr. Chong to provide any valuable insight on Intergovernmental Affairs or whatever??? Who is he and what credentials does he have??? But didn't Harper run on promises to improve accountability? To give MPs more of a free voice in the House? So yes, I do expect him to use his ministers effectively. If Mr. Chong was not qualified to hold the unity file then he should not have been given that position. PM Harper appointed him to that position therefore at the time Harper must have thought he was the best (or at least one of the best) people in the CPC caucus to do that job. I can only assume that Harper checked his credentials and found them worthy. Federal government political history seems to indicate that Cabinet ministers are required to vote with the PM, but it also seems to indicate that at the very least those ministers were consulted and / or played a role in crafting legislation and motions. Not always of course, but the majority of the time. That is a very poor way to run a business, let alone a government. The PM can't do everything by himself. That is the whole point of the Cabinet. To give qualified people responsibility over different areas of the government so that the PM does not have to micromanage. Besides, the people didn't vote for puppets. While some limits are expected when you are in government or in a party, most people expect to see at least a little bit of autonomy from their elected representatives.

The problem is none of what the insider says indicates that Chong was consulted on this motion. This issue really started heating up in the fall, October, and I doubt that the PM had this motion drafted and ready to go back in the summer. Chong may have talked in abstract terms with the PM about this months ago, but we're talking about an actual motion being put forward. I don't think you can consider two or three talks in the summer as being consulted on this particular motion. And yes, there was a caucus discussion, but that actually proves the point that Chong was not consulted as the Minister for the unity file. If the first he heard about it was in caucus then that means the motion was pretty much ready to go at that point, without his input. It would be like the head sales manager at Coca-Cola showing up to a company-wide meeting and only then hearing about the sales targets that have been set for the year, even though it is his/her responsibility to help set sales targets. To add salt to the wound, Coca-Cola would say that they consulted Pepsi's head sales manager when setting their targets (analogous to Harper consulting with Dion). If that happened in the business world it would be quite disrespectful to the sales manager (i.e. Chong).

I was looking at it more from what is in Canada's best interest rather than what is in the Conservatives' best interest. You're right, both strategies are good from the point of view of what is best for the CPC. But in terms of what is best for the country, I think optimistically that parties should try to cooperate more rather than just yelling and pointing fingers across the aisle. If all Harper is trying to do is cover his butt by consulting with Dion (in case the Liberals attack him for this motion) then that isn't really good for Canada. In my opinion. That is probably the CPC view. However, I think it's fair game to let the public know that the PMO is running things without even consulting the ministers in the Cabinet. I mean, what is the point of having them there if you aren't going to use them effectively? Is Chong going for his 15 minutes? Maybe. But that doesn't change the fact that this seems to indicate that Cabinet ministers are being ignored and / or under-utilised.

When I say turn back the clock I'm referring to the fact that homosexuals right now have equal rights and the right to SSM and your position that you would like to see those rights removed. In other words, you want to turn back the clock to a time when those rights did not exist. Here is the problem with saying that women's rights are different because their rights were not just given in Canada. First, other countries have recognized SSM. Only a handful so far, but this is not "only Canada". Second, using your logic nothing would ever change. Every country would look around and say "no one else is doing it, so we shouldn't either". You need some countries to start the process. So distinguishing women's rights from homosexuals' rights based on international acceptance isn't really useful. After all, it took many years for multiple countries to recognize women's rights. My general point is this: you can't say that everything must be as it was in 1867. So far I haven't seen any reasons why 1867 should be the "set in stone" basis for legislation / rights / etc. Well at least you are consistent by being willing to let the majority outlaw your religion. But don't you think you deserve to practice your religion even if the majority of the country doesn't want you to?

Here is what I find frustrating about the situation. Compare the current motion with the same sex marriage bill from a year ago. Now: There is a vote on a government motion. Cabinet is told to vote in favour of the motion. Backbenchers can vote as they wish. The Conservative position: this is all OK. A year ago: There is a vote on a government bill. Cabinet is told to vote in favour of the bill. Backbenchers can vote as they wish. The Conservative position: this is wrong and Cabinet must be allowed to vote their conscience. Some will say that there is a difference between a motion and a bill. (And there is.) But the Conservatives are reopening the debate on SSM supposedly because they want it to be a free vote. Even though they are following the exact same method for voting now as in the past. In addition to this, there is an argument to be made that this particular motion is just as important to Canada's future as the SSM bill. In fact, the argument could be made that this motion is more important. Aside from my frustration with political hypocrisy, I find it very odd that Harper did not consult with Chong but did consult with Dion. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Chong should have been consulted on a motion of this type. The optimistic side of me thinks that it is a good thing that Harper talked with Dion. It might show at least some willingness on Harper's part to work with other parties and to consult with experts in the field that don't automatically agree with him. The pessimistic side of me just thinks that he consulted Dion so that if the Liberals try to use the motion against him he can say that Dion was involved.

Which is why I gave you three simple questions up front. What really makes debate impossible is when people ignore what is said. Please answer my first two questions since they both call into question major arguments that you have been making in this thread. Here they are again: 1. When using the BNA Act as justification, are you not advocating to turn back the clock on most of the progress we have made since 1867? If not, then why turn back sexual orientation rights and not other rights (like women's rights)? 2. If the majority can decide what rights homosexuals have, can't they also decide what rights other groups have? In other words, can't the majority also decide to enslave people, or outlaw certain religions (like Christianity)? As for the third question, which you did answer... These broad categories would not solve your problem. You could frame the question about homosexual rights as a law and order question (think hate speech, etc.). Apparently we will have to agree to disagree. I think your desire to constantly put questions in front of Canadians is not practical and would quickly lead to (even more) apathy. As an aside... This statement is why Canadian politics is so depressing right now. The purpose of a political party is NOT just to win votes. The purpose is to give Canadians a plan that they want their country to follow. I think that maybe our current "leaders" have forgotten this. When you talk about Canadians deciding for themselves then I can't help thinking that this is why Canadians should get involved with local candidates and parties, talk to their MP, MPP, etc. Sitting back and saying "Why doesn't anyone listen to me? Why can't we have national referendums all the time?" is the lazy approach. Get involved. Make your voice heard. Canadians will choose as they always have - at election time.

Nice concept but too often they work harder on what will get them the most votes in the next election. Unfortunately you are right about where most politicians' priorities (seem to) lie. In my opinion, this is not an excuse for modifying the constitution. Do we want them to start working together, or do we want to put up a constitutional barrier that will make it even harder for the federal and provincial governments to cooperate?

Response not related to this thread: For those only interested in the topic of the thread you can probably stop reading here. What follows is my response to the parts of Leafless' post that I think have nothing to do with his position on homosexuality. Early attempts at patriation were made by both Liberal and Progressive Conservative PMs. See this link (particularly the "Early attempts" section): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriation. Not only that, but patriation required the support of multiple provincial governments, not all of whom were led by Liberals. Canadians are entitled to participate no matter what the history of our country is. This fixation about the British "giving us Canada" is irrelevant. So how do Canadians participate? Through their elected representatives. You might even say that by winning the federal election the Liberals in 1980 did win Canada. Your definition for what is "undemocratic and corrupt" seems to be "anything that our democratically elected government does that I [Leafless] don't agree with". Please at least look at the Canadian Constitution. No "safety device to prevent abuses of power... by politicians"? How about the court system? How about dividing up responsibility between the provincial and federal governments? There are "safety devices" there, whether you choose to notice them or not. I have no idea how this rant about immigration has anything to do with homosexuality or my post. Plus it doesn't make sense. But if you want to argue that then we can do that in another thread.

I don't see how your response justifies your position against SSM or rights protecting sexual orientation. Here are the questions that I still feel need to be answered by you: 1. When using the BNA Act as justification, are you not advocating to turn back the clock on most of the progress we have made since 1867? If not, then why turn back sexual orientation rights and not other rights (like women's rights)? 2. If the majority can decide what rights homosexuals have, can't they also decide what rights other groups have? In other words, can't the majority also decide to enslave people, or outlaw certain religions (like Christianity)? 3. The distinction you have made between what is a referendum (or "mini-referendum") and what should be left to Parliament without a referendum is quite vague. "Beneficial to the public" could arguably include extending equal rights to homosexuals. Can you make this distinction clear? My expanded thoughts on those questions: Q #1: The 1867 Question My question to you had nothing to do with how Canada may or may not be seen by the international community right now. One of your arguments against equal rights for homosexuals was that this was not explicitly stated in our Constitution in 1867. So my question is very simple: If this is a rationalization for not allowing homosexuals equal rights, then aren't you saying that it is also a rationalization to turn back the clock in every other area that has progressed since 1867? If homosexuals do not have rights because of the BNA Act, then shouldn't we remove a woman's right to vote? Shouldn't we get rid of our laws that protect the environment? Shouldn't we get rid of the laws that govern air travel? Or the pharmaceutical industry? None of these things were considered when Canada was formed. Q #2: What Majorities Can Decide First of all, a fair policy does not necessarily mean catering to the majority. For instance, very few people would see enslaving a minority ethnic group as fair. But enslaving a minority could very well cater to the interest of the majority. Do not confuse the desires of the majority with fairness for everyone. Second, you have missed my point. Yes, right now we have laws outlawing slavery. But you seem to be advocating that the majority should be able to decide whether or not homosexuals get equal rights. So by that logic, could the majority decide to repeal those slavery laws and start enslaving non-whites? If they can decide what rights homosexuals have, why can't they decide what rights other identifiable groups have? Q #3: Referendums You haven't answered my question about what should be a referendum question and what should be left to Parliament. All you have said is that some types of questions should be asked at election time (your "mini-referendums") and some should be asked at any time they become relevant (constitutional amendments). Saying that Parliament should make laws "beneficial to the public" is so wide open that nothing would ever have to go to a "mini-referendum". Parliament could easily say that recognizing sexual orientation as a protected right is beneficial to the public. This doesn't even take into account the fact that when you vote for a party platform it pretty much covers what you call a "mini-referendum". Kind of like voting for a party platform, right?

The idea of putting this in the Constitution is, to put it simply, bad. Sometimes, in order to create a valid national program some intrusion into provincial jurisidiction happens. The vice versa also happens - sometimes a valid provincial program will intrude into a federal jurisdiction. Let the balance be worked out through negotiation, not by putting hard limits on one side that reduce flexibility. Even with an issue that seems to be within a provincial jurisdiction, there are sometimes aspects to the issue that require federal attention. Look at healthcare. It is a provincial jurisdiction, but what happens if there is something like a flu epidemic that is spreading across the country. Should the federal government be limited in the amount of money it spends to combat this? The bottom line is, sometimes it is better to have a program run by the federal government and sometimes it is better to let the provinces run their own programs. Putting up hard barriers that favour one of those situations over the other is idiotic. Our provincial and federal governments should be working together, not spouting hardline ideological ideas that will actually make it harder for them to work together.

Leafless, there seem to be some problems with your arguments. First, you say that politicians are passing laws that should be decided in a national referendum. Our politicians are elected to represent us. It is their job to pass laws. It is not their job to go running back to their constituents every five minutes. When you say society should decide, you are missing the fact that society has already decided. It decided when we elected our government and that government went out and passed laws. Second, even if we were to have national referendums on multiple issues, who decides what must go to a referendum? What issues should be decided by everyone and what issues should be decided by Parliament? You have not made this distinction clear. Third, your logic seems to say that if the majority of Canadians voted for something then that is the morally correct answer. According to that type of logic if the majority of Canadians voted to establish slavery for all non-white people that would be acceptable to you. This argument also means that the majority of Canadians could vote to outlaw Christianity. Are you really sure that you want to advocate this type of decision making? Finally, you try to base some of your arguments on the fact that things used to be a certain way so that is the way they must remain. You also say that the British beat the French on the Plains of Abraham therefore the French have no other rights than those given in the original British North America Act. Here are the problems with statements like that: 1. If the British won the ability to impose their views then what stops other groups from now stepping up & doing the same? You say the British got this right by using violence. That argument seems to mean that any group who achieves supremacy, by force or otherwise, can set the rules for everyone. Our system of government is set up so that everyone can have their voices heard, not just those who yell the loudest or use violence. 2. Saying that everything must be exactly as it was in 1867 is extremely short sighted. Should we also get rid of all technology invented since 1867? Should women not be allowed to vote? If you want to roll the clock back to 1867 then please just come out and say that you think women's rights should be rolled back, etc. Times change, societies grow and mature. Our system of laws must accomodate this. If it didn't, then everything from Canadian businesses to Canadian infrastructure would be nothing but a joke in the international community and our system / society could never meet the needs of Canadian citizens living in the 21st century.

No doubt there are. But those links were not promoting anything homosexual. Please read those links and you will see that two links do not mention homosexuality at all, and the third link is an overview of how scientific studies have been misused to reach wrong conclusions. Is there any proof of that, or is this just your personal opinion? You seem to have found a number of links fairly easily. (Even if we disagree as to their accuracy.) No one is financially supporting anyone else because of same-sex marriage. SSM has nothing to do with gay pride parades. You imply that someone who is not religious must be committing criminal activities. This is not supported by any proof at all. When someone is being prosecuted for hate speech / literature it does not matter who the victim is. Your point about the cost of having Parliament debate issues is a bit ridiculous. It is their job to debate issues, and create / modify / repeal laws based on those debates and discussions. They are getting paid to do this. Having Parliament discuss issues relevant to today is not a waste of money. By your logic, having the Conservatives re-open the SSM debate after it has been decided is a waste of taxpayer money and should not be allowed. And no one is "promoting" any type of sexual lifestyle with taxpayer money. For you to make this point is laughable. You opened this thread with: You claimed that immorality and viciousness brought about homosexuality. That is what makes you a bigot - the fact that you are implying all homosexuals are somehow below heterosexuals. Those who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, but still treat homosexuals as equals, are not bigots in my opinion. Only those who then try to debase homosexuals are worthy of the title of bigot. Your last bit of logic is also interesting: You say that the cause of homosexuality has not been proven therefore government should make it, and everything associated with it, illegal. Using that same logic: The existence of God has not been proven, so should the government make all religions, and everything associated with those religions, illegal?

I think that you have failed to show how (for example) Quebec has any special privileges that affect anyone anywhere else in the country. This post generally seems to me that you are saying when a group that you disagree with asks for equal rights then they are imposing themselves onto other people in this country. And yet here is the real problem with your argument: When homosexuals ask for same-sex marriage the only people it affects are the homosexuals who choose to get married. It has no impact on anyone else. But when you ask for same-sex marriage to be banned, that is an enforcement of certain beliefs held by certain (i.e. not all) Christian denominations, then that enforcement would directly impact other peoples' lives. Justifying your position by saying that homosexuals are a special interest group that is imposing its beliefs on everyone else is not logical since same-sex marriage does not impose itself on anyone and yet your argument does impose itself on others. As for your last point about referendums: who decides what is a major issue that affects all Canadians? It is impractical to have a referendum on everything. Should we have referendums on what issues should be taken to referendum? We do have elections, and in those elections the parties tell you what they want to do for the next five years. We elect our government to lead the country, not to check with us every five minutes in a national referendum for every minor detail.

These links only took about five minutes to find through google. The first two talk a little bit about child sexual abuse statistics: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/fami...sxagrsex_e.html See the section about "The Abuser". No mention of sexual orientation. http://www.darkness2light.org/KnowAbout/statistics_2.asp Again no mention of sexual orientation. But here's the link everyone really wants... http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html Here is the executive summary of the paper: In summary, there is no evidence that homosexuals are any more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.

As for the whole Fortier thing... Harper did make it clear back in February that Fortier would not be running in a by-election: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/06/...umps060206.html So fine, I won't go overboard in blasting the Conservatives for not running Fortier. But here's the thing about this situation. The Conservatives stand up and tell everyone that they are going to be accountable to the public and that they stand for principles. Then, in one of their very first acts as government, they get a Liberal to cross the floor by giving him a Cabinet position and appoint a person to the Senate (albeit temporarily) so that an unelected person can hold a Cabinet position. All of this after the Conservatives slammed the Liberals for having someone cross the floor to get a Cabinet position and after they made it clear that they stood against unelected people having Cabinet positions and that they stood against Senators being politically appointed. Let's just say that I find it disingenuous when the party that claims to stand for principles bends those principles for the sake of convenience the very first chance they get. To tie all of this back into the topic of this thread... Harper had a chance to distinguish himself from the Liberals. Unfortunately there have been enough small gaffes and "bending of principles" so far that he has created doubts in the minds of many Canadians - especially those that typically fall within the "undecided voter" category. If I was a higher up in the Conservative party, when election time comes around I would be very worried about the voters thinking "Maybe the Conservatives and Liberals aren't that different after all. And if they aren't that different, maybe I'll vote for the devil I know rather than the devil I don't."

Corrupt? How? Where is there any evidence that our judiciary is corrupt? Or self-serving? Or even beholden to a political party? The Canadian judiciary has been looked to by many countries as a model of what a judiciary should be. Just because you may not agree with their decisions does not make them corrupt or incompetent. Don't take the highly politicized rhetoric that surrounds the US court system (and the associated nominations and elections) and attempt to apply it here in Canada. If the money collected for a convention is greater than the money spent on the convention then this is fundraising for the party. By not reporting the money the Conservative party could be raising funds for the party without accounting for those funds. Now they say that they broke even. But how do we know that if they don't report it? And let's not pretend that this is just an issue of interpretation that no one saw coming. In the past, every party reported their convention fees, including the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties. There was no reason for the Conservatives not to report this money. You can't talk about accountability and then not expect people to jump all over you when it appears that you are not being transparent. Is this a big deal? Probably not. But by refusing to show transparency, especially when their actions are a departure from the accepted norm, they have made it into a bigger deal than it had to be. And changing their Accountability Act so that they don't have to show this money just adds fuel to the conspiracy theorists' fire. For someone who made comments about other members' attachment to democracy this seems like a strange comment. By strange I mean hypocritical. A free media, which is allowed to do its job, is essential for democracy. As an aside... many professions have self-regulating bodies. For example lawyers and engineers. Having teachers regulate the Ontario College of Teachers is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, removing politics from the equation will probably do a lot of good.

You may look around and see people never being punished, but I'm not sure you would find support for that position amongst the majority of Canadians. Do you have any statistics on sentencing that would show that there is a system-wide tendency for light sentencing? If you're saying that people are getting away with things almost daily then there must be some proof of that somewhere. As for the rest of your post that I'm quoting above, let's just say that on many things we'll have to agree to disagree. We could have a whole thread on capital punishment, but you'll never convince me that killing people is a legitimate tool for seeing justice served. Likewise for the idea that youths should be tried as adults no matter what.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the attempt to prevent Quebec from enforcing this provision the first time the SCOC gave effect to the "notwithstanding" clause? I just have a few questions, since I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. 1. When you say "enforcing this provision" which provision are you talking about? Section 20? In case you are referring to section 20... As I have tried to point out to Leafless, this section only applies to institutions of the federal government. Quebec has nothing to do with this section. The section just says that the federal government, under the listed conditions, must provide services in both official languages. 2. What do you mean when you say the SCC "gave effect to the 'notwithstanding' clause"? The notwithstanding clause can be used by provincial governments or the federal government so that a law that would otherwise violate certain sections of the Charter would remain in effect. It effectively takes away the court's ability to say "this law violates these sections of the Charter so it should be struck down". So courts do not use the clause, the federal or provincial governments do. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question or not... is there a specific case name or issue that you are thinking of?

Other basic values around when Canada was formed: 1. Women could not vote. 2. Capital punishment for many crimes (ranging from minor to major). 3. Marriage meant that a woman gave up all rights to property. To throw in a US reference: 1. Slavery. It is simple & understandable. This argument about how we should keep something simply because it was around 100 years ago is worthless. If that's the best reason you've got for limiting the rights of homosexuals then give up now and don't embarass yourself further. When the government sends someone to your house and makes you marry someone of the same sex, then you can complain that a lifestyle is being forced upon you. Until then, your argument is hyperbole at best. That's not interesting, it's ridiculous. It assumes that all homosexuals follow some set of rules regarding beliefs, that all Christians oppose homosexuality, and that organized society is dependent on Christianity. Just looking at the last assumption, I seem to remember that there were organized and successful societies in existence before Christianity became an organized religion... can you say Roman empire? Or Egyptian civilization? Crazy called. It wants you to stop giving it a bad name.

As I've said, land area is a factor, but I believe population to be a more important factor. It is people who produce pollution, not the land. More people driving cars, using electricity, heating and cooling their homes, etc. When you say "What per cent of the world's land mass do we occupy?" you could just as easily ask "What per cent of the world's population do we have?" To put your question back at you, isn't that more realistic given that it is people who produce pollution? What you are talking about is population density. Again, a factor. Higher density means that savings might exist in terms of more efficient mass transit systems, less loss of energy through distribution networks, etc. Don't get me wrong, I think land area and population density (among other things) should be used to help keep track of the problem. But I think population should be the first thing we look at before looking at the others.

What the Cons are saying is that our Kyoto targets are unreachable and so we need to set new targets which are reachable. Seems logical to me. But as you say, some people are indeed stupid. They say Kyoto targets are unreachable and that we need new targets. OK, but so far that is still just talk - just like the Liberals. The problem I have with the Conservative approach to answering most environmental questions is that their answers always end up saying "But the Liberals didn't do anything." So when someone asks them "Isn't your new Clean Air Act the same as what we already have? Can't we already accomplish this with existing legislation?", I don't want to hear about how the Liberals didn't do anything. I want them to actually answer the question and show that their new legislation is adding something, not just an almost meaningless gesture (which is what the Conservatives keep accusing the Liberals of). I'm willing to give any party a chance to explain their proposals and policies. But not if every question is answered with rhetoric. Of course, every party does this, so maybe I'm just going to have to live with meaningless answers from everyone.

Of course not. But I'm not a bird. I'm someone trying to think of a way to solve the problem realistically.No. You mean politically. Since your policies are arbitrary to the bird, you are using the environment as a tool for political purposes. The policy is not arbitrary. It acknowledges that pollution will happen and that it must be at a level that the environment can absorb (i.e. the bird won't be harmed by it). It also acknowledges that more people will pollute more in terms of absolute units of pollution, but that the goal is still to get this to an acceptable level. The solution to environmental problems is necessarily political and scientific. This is because the problem is international in nature and therefore politics will play a role. I have proposed a way to use this to solve the problem. You have politicized the scenario in a different way. You say that you don't care how other countries solve the problem and proposed targets that will clearly act as disincentives. Under your proposals nothing will get done, but you can at least pretend that your targets are completely objective (which of course they aren't because no single target can objectively address all of the variables involved in this type of complex problem). Yes, it is because of the way you apply such a statistic. The environment is not your priority. It is just a cover for treating some "rich polluters" and "poor polluters" differently. What I talked about had nothing to do with rich or poor. I have no idea where you got that conclusion. I look at what you propose and can say that the environment isn't even remotely your priority. You are more concerned with saying every country must be identical than attempting to solve the problem in a practical way.